Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[hobelim]

they CLEARLY act very differently

I don't know about that, the theme of sacrifice of sons continues unabated.

When Jesus said " but as for those enemies of mine who would not have me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence." it was a subtle teaching about how to understand and conform to the laws of ritual sacrifice.

It was never about killing farm animals or killing anything..

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts."

 

[Czernobog]

they CLEARLY act very differently

I don't know about that, the theme of sacrifice of sons continues unabated.

When Jesus said " but as for those enemies of mine who would not have me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence." it was a subtle teaching about how to understand and conform to the laws of ritual sacrifice.

It was never about killing farm animals or killing anything..

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts."

Really?!?! You're going to compare a parable told by Jesus about a rich man to the direct command of God? At no point did Jesus command anyone to "bring them here and slaughter them in my presence." as you are dishonestly implying by taking a single line of text out of context and saying "When Jesus said...". In the context of the parable that Jesus was telling those words weren't allegorical either. The rich man meant exactly what he said - "bring them here, and kill them at my feet," Now the parable was likely allegory, but applying that to 1 Sam only works if you can demonstrate that the story in 1 Sam was nothing more than a parable. Go ahead. Demonstrate that. I'll wait...

 

[hobelim]

they CLEARLY act very differently

I don't know about that, the theme of sacrifice of sons continues unabated.

When Jesus said " but as for those enemies of mine who would not have me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence." it was a subtle teaching about how to understand and conform to the laws of ritual sacrifice.

It was never about killing farm animals or killing anything..

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts."

Really?!?! You're going to compare a parable told by Jesus about a rich man to the direct command of God? At no point did Jesus command anyone to "bring them here and slaughter them in my presence." as you are dishonestly implying by taking a single line of text out of context and saying "When Jesus said...". In the context of the parable that Jesus was telling those words weren't allegorical either. The rich man meant exactly what he said - "bring them here, and kill them at my feet," Now the parable was likely allegory, but applying that to 1 Sam only works if you can demonstrate that the story in 1 Sam was nothing more than a parable. Go ahead. Demonstrate that. I'll wait...

Wow, you think way too highly of yourself. Thats a problem..

No one can add anything to the cup of the person who is already full of himself.

Anyway, yes, it was a parable and no the word slaughter does not imply killing just like when Jesus said Satan was a murderer from the beginning he was not talking about homicide.

You are taking things too literally professor, even in a parable, lol, creating with your own hand a false image of a god that does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence and then, standing on a pile of your own excrement, boastfully declare as if you were some sort of genius that there is no such God.

Meanwhile you and your 'fellow atheists', lol, don't even have enough sense to be embarrassed.

 

[rightwinger]

Like so many others you misunderstand my position. There is no God is not my belief. It is merely a premise. It is a negative premise that awaits objective evidence to falsify it.

Then I invite you to examine the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. God proved his existence so overwhelmingly that there is no possibility to deny it.

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

You failed to respond to his answer

If God had actually done something to the sun, it would have been evident everywhere on earth

The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion of hallucination

 

[hobelim]

Then I invite you to examine the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. God proved his existence so overwhelmingly that there is no possibility to deny it.

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

You failed to respond to his answer

If God had actually done something to the sun, it would have been evident everywhere on earth

The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion of hallucination

I have seen the sun look like it was dancing around. It was just atmospheric conditions. Different types of clouds were moving around in different directions at different speeds and altitudes which made it seem like the sun was moving around..

I wasn't hallucinating...

Superstitious people already on the verge of hysteria would tend to look for supernatural explanations for ordinary events.

 

[Czernobog]

I will repeat, once more.

The theme of the op is that the Christian god and jesus are real


even though he keeps quoting the old testament, in violation of his own op.

The Christian god is YHWH, the god of the old testament.

they CLEARLY act very differently

Actually, they are presented as clearly different. God, himself, is noticeably silent after Malachi. Then, the God that is describe by the Nazarene is entirely different from the God of direct contact with humans during the Old Testament. Therein lies the problem. How does one reconcile the God personally encountered in the Old Testament with the God presented by the Nazarene, and the New Testament writers. Your solution seems to just be to pretend that the Old Testament God is a different God than the new Testament God. Two questions, then:

1 - Why include the Old Testament in the Christian Bible, if they are the stories of two different Gods, and the latter has nothing to do with the former?
2 - Why do so many authors of the New Testament keep making reference to the God of the Old Testament, as if they are one, and the same?

Pretending that the two gods are different simply doesn't fit the exegesis of the Bible.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but, perhaps both of us are missing the true interpretation of the Bible and/or just have insufficient brains (compared to God) to truly comprehend His brand of justice and ethics.

But the premise of god is the god of the bible, not some other interpretation of some other entity.

I mean that maybe we really don't understand the ways of the God of the Bible.
What we think it means and what is really means, may be 2 different things. Plus, there is a matter of whether it was accurately translated ... etc.

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

That is demonstrably not true. The original Hebrew for Ex. 20:5 is קַנָּא (qanna). The primitive root word is קָנָא (qana') which means to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:—(be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), very, (be) zeal(-ous). So it is clear that in the original Hebrew, when God said, "I am a jealous God," he meant exactly that. Jealous, envious, not passionately devoted". You are simply trying to redefine the original Hebrew into something you find more comfortable.

See, this is what happens when you presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

 

[Czernobog]

they CLEARLY act very differently

I don't know about that, the theme of sacrifice of sons continues unabated.

When Jesus said " but as for those enemies of mine who would not have me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence." it was a subtle teaching about how to understand and conform to the laws of ritual sacrifice.

It was never about killing farm animals or killing anything..

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts."

Really?!?! You're going to compare a parable told by Jesus about a rich man to the direct command of God? At no point did Jesus command anyone to "bring them here and slaughter them in my presence." as you are dishonestly implying by taking a single line of text out of context and saying "When Jesus said...". In the context of the parable that Jesus was telling those words weren't allegorical either. The rich man meant exactly what he said - "bring them here, and kill them at my feet," Now the parable was likely allegory, but applying that to 1 Sam only works if you can demonstrate that the story in 1 Sam was nothing more than a parable. Go ahead. Demonstrate that. I'll wait...

Wow, you think way too highly of yourself. Thats a problem..

No one can add anything to the cup of the person who is already full of himself.

 

[hobelim]

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but, perhaps both of us are missing the true interpretation of the Bible and/or just have insufficient brains (compared to God) to truly comprehend His brand of justice and ethics.

But the premise of god is the god of the bible, not some other interpretation of some other entity.

I mean that maybe we really don't understand the ways of the God of the Bible.
What we think it means and what is really means, may be 2 different things. Plus, there is a matter of whether it was accurately translated ... etc.

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

That is demonstrably not true. The original Hebrew for Ex. 20:5 is קַנָּא (qanna). The primitive root word is קָנָא (qana') which means to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:—(be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), very, (be) zeal(-ous). So it is clear that in the original Hebrew, when God said, "I am a jealous God," he meant exactly that. Jealous, envious, not passionately devoted". You are simply trying to redefine the original Hebrew into something you find more comfortable.

See, this is what happens when yu presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy.

nice try, but not really.

 

[hobelim]

See, this is what happens when yu presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

Your whole position amounts to saying after reading the story of little red riding hood that you refuse to worship any God that allowed grandma to be eaten by the big bad wolf.

you are dismissed.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but, perhaps both of us are missing the true interpretation of the Bible and/or just have insufficient brains (compared to God) to truly comprehend His brand of justice and ethics.

But the premise of god is the god of the bible, not some other interpretation of some other entity.

I mean that maybe we really don't understand the ways of the God of the Bible.
What we think it means and what is really means, may be 2 different things. Plus, there is a matter of whether it was accurately translated ... etc.

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

That is demonstrably not true. The original Hebrew for Ex. 20:5 is קַנָּא (qanna). The primitive root word is קָנָא (qana') which means to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:—(be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), very, (be) zeal(-ous). So it is clear that in the original Hebrew, when God said, "I am a jealous God," he meant exactly that. Jealous, envious, not passionately devoted". You are simply trying to redefine the original Hebrew into something you find more comfortable.

See, this is what happens when yu presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy.

nice try, but not really.

He didn't say he was a Zealous God. He said he was a Jealous God. "J", not "Z".
Exodus20:5 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You even typed it as jealous:

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

 

[Czernobog]

See, this is what happens when yu presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

Your whole position amounts to saying after reading the story of little red riding hood that you refuse to worship any God that allowed grandma to be eaten by the big bad wolf.

you are dismissed.

Do you even realise the absurdity of what you just said?!?! You just confirmed, by comparison, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fairy tales!!!

You're right. I will not join a religion based on a bunch of fairy tales. Thank you for your concession. You are dismissed.

 

[hobelim]

But the premise of god is the god of the bible, not some other interpretation of some other entity.

I mean that maybe we really don't understand the ways of the God of the Bible.
What we think it means and what is really means, may be 2 different things. Plus, there is a matter of whether it was accurately translated ... etc.

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

That is demonstrably not true. The original Hebrew for Ex. 20:5 is קַנָּא (qanna). The primitive root word is קָנָא (qana') which means to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:—(be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), very, (be) zeal(-ous). So it is clear that in the original Hebrew, when God said, "I am a jealous God," he meant exactly that. Jealous, envious, not passionately devoted". You are simply trying to redefine the original Hebrew into something you find more comfortable.

See, this is what happens when yu presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy.

nice try, but not really.

He didn't say he was a Zealous God. He said he was a Jealous God. "J", not "Z".
Exodus20:5 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You even typed it as jealous:

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but, perhaps both of us are missing the true interpretation of the Bible and/or just have insufficient brains (compared to God) to truly comprehend His brand of justice and ethics.

But the premise of god is the god of the bible, not some other interpretation of some other entity.

I mean that maybe we really don't understand the ways of the God of the Bible.
What we think it means and what is really means, may be 2 different things. Plus, there is a matter of whether it was accurately translated ... etc.

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

You just posted that the original word meant zealous which as I said meant something like passionately devoted.

You lied. Zealous does not imply envy and is not synonymous with Jealous.



Who was it out there who asked for an example of a completely false person who can't admit even the smallest embarrassing truth?

There you go.

 

[hobelim]

See, this is what happens when yu presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

Your whole position amounts to saying after reading the story of little red riding hood that you refuse to worship any God that allowed grandma to be eaten by the big bad wolf.

you are dismissed.

Do you even realise the absurdity of what you just said?!?! You just confirmed, by comparison, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fairy tales!!!

You're right. I will not join a religion based on a bunch of fairy tales. Thank you for your concession. You are dismissed.

Concession? ROFLMAO...


I have been saying this openly for years in plain english and even directly to you.

wtf.

Like you never heard it before.


Who out there was asking for an example of the dead who don't know that they are dead walking around like regular folks?


There you go..

 

[Czernobog]

I mean that maybe we really don't understand the ways of the God of the Bible.
What we think it means and what is really means, may be 2 different things. Plus, there is a matter of whether it was accurately translated ... etc.

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

That is demonstrably not true. The original Hebrew for Ex. 20:5 is קַנָּא (qanna). The primitive root word is קָנָא (qana') which means to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:—(be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), very, (be) zeal(-ous). So it is clear that in the original Hebrew, when God said, "I am a jealous God," he meant exactly that. Jealous, envious, not passionately devoted". You are simply trying to redefine the original Hebrew into something you find more comfortable.

See, this is what happens when yu presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy.

nice try, but not really.

He didn't say he was a Zealous God. He said he was a Jealous God. "J", not "Z".
Exodus20:5 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You even typed it as jealous:

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but, perhaps both of us are missing the true interpretation of the Bible and/or just have insufficient brains (compared to God) to truly comprehend His brand of justice and ethics.

But the premise of god is the god of the bible, not some other interpretation of some other entity.

I mean that maybe we really don't understand the ways of the God of the Bible.
What we think it means and what is really means, may be 2 different things. Plus, there is a matter of whether it was accurately translated ... etc.

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

You just posted that the original word meant zealous which as I said meant something like passionately devoted.

You lied. Zealous does not imply envy and is not synonymous with Jealous.



Who was it out there who asked for an example of a completely false person who can't admit even the smallest embarrassing truth?

There you go.

Oh, for fuck's sake! Are you incapable of any research for yourself?!?! The primitive root word, קָנָא (qana') can mean zealous. The specific derivative - קַנָּא (qanna) - used in Ex 20:5 only has one meaning - Jealous!!! Again, if you are going to make claims about what the Bible "originally" did, and did not mean, please make certain that you understand how the original languages work!

 

[hobelim]

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

That is demonstrably not true. The original Hebrew for Ex. 20:5 is קַנָּא (qanna). The primitive root word is קָנָא (qana') which means to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:—(be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), very, (be) zeal(-ous). So it is clear that in the original Hebrew, when God said, "I am a jealous God," he meant exactly that. Jealous, envious, not passionately devoted". You are simply trying to redefine the original Hebrew into something you find more comfortable.

See, this is what happens when yu presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy.

nice try, but not really.

He didn't say he was a Zealous God. He said he was a Jealous God. "J", not "Z".
Exodus20:5 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You even typed it as jealous:

But the premise of god is the god of the bible, not some other interpretation of some other entity.

I mean that maybe we really don't understand the ways of the God of the Bible.
What we think it means and what is really means, may be 2 different things. Plus, there is a matter of whether it was accurately translated ... etc.

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

You just posted that the original word meant zealous which as I said meant something like passionately devoted.

You lied. Zealous does not imply envy and is not synonymous with Jealous.



Who was it out there who asked for an example of a completely false person who can't admit even the smallest embarrassing truth?

There you go.

Oh, for fuck's sake! Are you incapable of any research for yourself?!?! The primitive root word, (qana') can mean zealous. The specific derivative - used in Ex 20:5 only has one meaning - Jealous!!! Again, if you are going to make claims about what the Bible "originally" did, and did not mean, please make certain that you understand how the original languages work!

Ahem, you are posting the incorrect english translation which you already admitted really should be zealous, not jealous. God is passionately devoted, not envious.


Who was it out there who wanted a righteous example about how to slaughter a he-goat "without blemish" for the expiation of sin?

There you go.

 

[Czernobog]

That is demonstrably not true. The original Hebrew for Ex. 20:5 is קַנָּא (qanna). The primitive root word is קָנָא (qana') which means to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:—(be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), very, (be) zeal(-ous). So it is clear that in the original Hebrew, when God said, "I am a jealous God," he meant exactly that. Jealous, envious, not passionately devoted". You are simply trying to redefine the original Hebrew into something you find more comfortable.

See, this is what happens when yu presume that no one else has actually studied the Bible in its original text, and won't recognise bullshit for what it is.

Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy.

nice try, but not really.

He didn't say he was a Zealous God. He said he was a Jealous God. "J", not "Z".
Exodus20:5 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You even typed it as jealous:

I mean that maybe we really don't understand the ways of the God of the Bible.
What we think it means and what is really means, may be 2 different things. Plus, there is a matter of whether it was accurately translated ... etc.

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

You just posted that the original word meant zealous which as I said meant something like passionately devoted.

You lied. Zealous does not imply envy and is not synonymous with Jealous.



Who was it out there who asked for an example of a completely false person who can't admit even the smallest embarrassing truth?

There you go.

Oh, for fuck's sake! Are you incapable of any research for yourself?!?! The primitive root word, (qana') can mean zealous. The specific derivative - used in Ex 20:5 only has one meaning - Jealous!!! Again, if you are going to make claims about what the Bible "originally" did, and did not mean, please make certain that you understand how the original languages work!

Ahem, you are posting the incorrect english translation which you already admitted really should be zealous, not jealous. God is passionately devoted, not envious.


Who was it out there who wanted a righteous example about how to slaughter a he-goat "without blemish" for the expiation of sin?

There you go.

I admitted no such fucking thing! Post where I ever said the word was zealous!!!

 

[hobelim]

Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy.

nice try, but not really.

He didn't say he was a Zealous God. He said he was a Jealous God. "J", not "Z".
Exodus20:5 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You even typed it as jealous:

Yes, and an example would be "I am a jealous God" .

The the original word has a meaning closer to "passionately devoted."

You just posted that the original word meant zealous which as I said meant something like passionately devoted.

You lied. Zealous does not imply envy and is not synonymous with Jealous.



Who was it out there who asked for an example of a completely false person who can't admit even the smallest embarrassing truth?

There you go.

Oh, for fuck's sake! Are you incapable of any research for yourself?!?! The primitive root word, (qana') can mean zealous. The specific derivative - used in Ex 20:5 only has one meaning - Jealous!!! Again, if you are going to make claims about what the Bible "originally" did, and did not mean, please make certain that you understand how the original languages work!

Ahem, you are posting the incorrect english translation which you already admitted really should be zealous, not jealous. God is passionately devoted, not envious.


Who was it out there who wanted a righteous example about how to slaughter a he-goat "without blemish" for the expiation of sin?

There you go.

I admitted no such fucking thing! Post where I ever said the word was zealous!!!

Go back and read it yourself.

Even in the context of 20:5 Jealous is not the correct word. Zealous, like passionate is. Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy. May you would punish out of jealously but thats just you.

Even the idea of punishment is wrong.


teaching children to worship false Gods would have generational consequences not as a result of punishment but a result of cause and effect.

 

[Czernobog]

He didn't say he was a Zealous God. He said he was a Jealous God. "J", not "Z".
Exodus20:5 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You even typed it as jealous:

You just posted that the original word meant zealous which as I said meant something like passionately devoted.

You lied. Zealous does not imply envy and is not synonymous with Jealous.



Who was it out there who asked for an example of a completely false person who can't admit even the smallest embarrassing truth?

There you go.

Oh, for fuck's sake! Are you incapable of any research for yourself?!?! The primitive root word, (qana') can mean zealous. The specific derivative - used in Ex 20:5 only has one meaning - Jealous!!! Again, if you are going to make claims about what the Bible "originally" did, and did not mean, please make certain that you understand how the original languages work!

Ahem, you are posting the incorrect english translation which you already admitted really should be zealous, not jealous. God is passionately devoted, not envious.


Who was it out there who wanted a righteous example about how to slaughter a he-goat "without blemish" for the expiation of sin?

There you go.

I admitted no such fucking thing! Post where I ever said the word was zealous!!!

Go back and read it yourself.

Even in the context of 20:5 Jealous is not the correct word. Zealous, like passionate is. Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy. May you would punish out of jealously but thats just you.

Yes it is. קַנָּא (qanna) - the word used in Exodus, and translated as "jealous" IS. NOT. the same as the word קָנָא (qana'), which can, under certain circumstances be translated a zealous.

I made the two words in Hebrew as large as I could. Study them closely, and see if you can spot the difference that makes then two. Different. Words.

And, fateer this, don't presume to tell anyone what the Bible "originially meant", as you clearly have no understanding of how the original language in which the bible was written works!!!!

 

[hobelim]

You just posted that the original word meant zealous which as I said meant something like passionately devoted.

You lied. Zealous does not imply envy and is not synonymous with Jealous.



Who was it out there who asked for an example of a completely false person who can't admit even the smallest embarrassing truth?

There you go.

Oh, for fuck's sake! Are you incapable of any research for yourself?!?! The primitive root word, (qana') can mean zealous. The specific derivative - used in Ex 20:5 only has one meaning - Jealous!!! Again, if you are going to make claims about what the Bible "originally" did, and did not mean, please make certain that you understand how the original languages work!

Ahem, you are posting the incorrect english translation which you already admitted really should be zealous, not jealous. God is passionately devoted, not envious.


Who was it out there who wanted a righteous example about how to slaughter a he-goat "without blemish" for the expiation of sin?

There you go.

I admitted no such fucking thing! Post where I ever said the word was zealous!!!

Go back and read it yourself.

Even in the context of 20:5 Jealous is not the correct word. Zealous, like passionate is. Zealous has nothing whatever to do with envy. May you would punish out of jealously but thats just you.

Yes it is. קַנָּא (qanna) - the word used in Exodus, and translated as "jealous" IS. NOT. the same as the word קָנָא (qana'), which can, under certain circumstances be translated a zealous.

I made the two words in Hebrew as large as I could. Study them closely, and see if you can spot the difference that makes then two. Different. Words.

And, fateer this, don't presume to tell anyone what the Bible "originially meant", as you clearly have no understanding of how the original language in which the bible was written works!!!!

Torah means teaching. What is the teaching?

What leads to life if not understanding, what leads to death is not failing to understand?

You thinking that God is a petty tyrant rife with human flaws that makes you hate that God reflects more of a hatred of self than anything else..

If you read the same story and get the teaching that there are generational consequences in life for throwing your mind in the trash and adopting false beliefs and imitating degrading practices you won't be a dick about the subject.

Beware! for it is written, if you stay on Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.. (Pinocchio 3:14)